To continue to use names for new movements or ideas is to continue to perpetuate elitism and inequality. I call it the intellectual elitism problem (instead of the economic elitism). We must stop forming named entities of any kind because: A) groups require leaders and B) groups divide people. If we do not stop forming groups we will not be able to transform the world because we will continue to perpetuate elitism and therefore inequality.
As long as we promote names of corporations, institutions, movements or individuals we are implying, albeit unintentionally, that a particular view or an idea or a process is more important or more valid than any other views, ideas or processes thereby devaluing the target audience we wish to change. Therefore making the audience feel the need to defend their current mode of existence, thus making it impossible for them to accept our new ideas. We are perpetuating the conflict by attempting to end it because we are creating a new form of elitism and therefore inequality in order to end another form of elitism and inequality. Total equality cannot be achieved if we perpetuate names of concepts or institution or any other tools that are enabling people to see themselves as different and ‘to differentiate’.
As long as we use names we are forcing people to see themselves as ‘different’ from other people because it is impossible for all human beings to accept the same concept at the same time. In order to remove ‘the intellectual lag’ (between those who are aware of certain things and those who are not aware of them) we must remove the notion that there is a concept that needs to be perceived or accepted. We must promote the natural state of existence which is not something with finite begging or end points.
The idea is this: All of us are capable of peace and love. There is no party, club, movement, institution or any other entity that one needs to join to in order to access them. Peace and love are within all of us. Right now. The problem is we don’t know how to access them. We don’t know how to relate to people because we have been taught how to create and perpetuate a permanent form of ‘difference’. We continue to perpetuate that difference when we create named entities that promote peace and love, because, like stated above, all people cannot accept the same concept at the same time regardless of how positive the concept is. One could argue that all people do not have to accept the same concept at the same time. Unfortunately, I do not think it’s wise to continue to perpetuate the divide, that is the intellectual elitism (by forming organizations with specific names), because we are running out of time. Perhaps if we had millions of years we could say : we will create our peace or love or equality group and perpetuate it and promote its name despite any opposition we may encounter. Unfortunately, we do not have millions of years. We are running out of resources. By promoting named institutions or concepts we are creating new opposition whenever we promote our institutions of concepts. Thus we are perpetuating the battle. We are recruiting ‘friendly’ and ‘enemies’ at the same time.
The individuals who want to change the world must realize that: NO MOVEMENT IS REQUIRED BECAUSE OUR EXISTENCE IS THE BIGGEST MOVEMENT.
It is this concept that most people cannot begin to grasp and that is why movements always get in their own way. Movement leaders should not aspire to disappear nor should they aspire to win.
I THINK MOVEMENT LEADERS MUST LEARN HOW BLEND IN WITH HUMANITY.
If I HAD TO, ABSOLUTELY HAD TO name a movement, I would call it NO MOVEMENT and its motto would be THERE IS NO MOVEMENT BECAUSE YOU ARE THE MOVEMENT.
WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT IS CREATING A NEW DIMENSION OF COMMUNICATION BY CREATING A NEW LEVEL OF EMOTIONAL CONNECTION. I AM TALKING ABOUT REDESIGNING OUR LANGUAGE IN ORDER TO COMMUNICATE IN A WAY THAT WOULD ENABLES US TO COMMUNICATE MORE EMOTIONS. I am writing a book about this. It is sixty percent complete. In order to achieve the above mentioned task we need to create a new kind of environment.
We must create a linguistic environment where we could work to remove as many ideological or physical obstacles that suggest that one should see himself or herself as different (from other individuals, including environments) as possible (from our language).
Note, this does not mean erasing personal differences, personal freedoms or personal expression. On the contrary, it means learning to use the language in order to create minds that would be ready to see the external as an extension of themselves thus reducing (and perhaps one day eliminating) the need to categorize and differentiate. We would be learning to expect differences and to see them as ‘a normality or a routine’ and not as an obstacle thus creating a new form of emotional connection that would transform how we perceive one another and how we interact.
I am talking about using latest digital technologies and digital environments to change our psyche and our behavior in order to remove certain socio psychological anxieties by changing how we teach children to speak and interact in order to remove thinking patterns that create stereotypes, clichés, sexism and so on.
This would require major redesigning of all digital devices and how we interact with them but it would change how our brains gather and interpret information and that would change how we perceive one another and that I hope would change how we treat one another. A total bio chemical digital revolution that would change how we interact with ourselves, with our digital devices and environments, and I hope with other people. Bring up the sense of empathy to the foreground and learning how to embed it first into our thinking then into our language then into our relationships and digital devices and environments thus transforming our reality.